Lakeland Properties, Inc. v. Mangum

I respectfully dissent. The majority, entranced-by the trial court’s colloquy with counsel while passing upon plaintiff’s “motion to sever”, has completely overlooked the controlling effect of Rule 97(a): this suit was a compulsory counterclaim in the first proceeding. In order to demonstrate such fact, it is necessary that I add to the already lengthy statement.

Lakeland Properties, Inc., was a party plaintiff in the original suit, having sought damages from Mrs. Mangum for fraud in the inducement of the execution and delivery of the promissory note now involved in this cause. It failed to…